Shaidle spends the first few pages of this combination memoir, essay and rant detailing her failed attempts to fit in with the female norms of her youth by trying to display a sexuality that did not really fit her.
This part of her book is interesting and even a little affecting.
After she finishes with the biographical bits, however, the book becomes a potpourri of her many prejudices.
She offers them cleverly — she has a way with words — but sometimes her views seem more like a random list of annoyances.
In particular, she hates “beta males” (which is problematical, since she is so obviously a beta female), the Canadian government ( I’m with her on that one), Madonna (but she loves Siouxsie Sioux), National Review, academics, giving arguments for her screeds, and probably people who like her.
She is fun, and she is a master of snark. But she rarely gives you a good reason why you would want to share her views, and maybe she wants it that way.
‘I find the idea that tens of millions of American ‘traditionalist’ conservatives are going to lead their own lives immune to the broader culture somewhat unlikely’
Mark Steyn writes:
Were the same-sex marriage decision, for example, merely a judicial ruling, Barack Obama would not have lit up the White House in LGBT rainbow colors. It is after all “the people’s house” and half the people aren’t entirely on board with this. But he chose to see this not as a mere judge’s ruling but as an ideological victory – and to celebrate it as such. And he’s thereby telling you that this shift is an official one, backed by the state, and state power, and it won’t stop here. (…)
To most of the so-called millennials, conservatism is entirely invisible except as a Jon Stewart punchline – and that invisibility was largely our choice. Instead of launching another radio show or news aggregator or think-tank, never mind obsessing over whether Jeb or Jindal or Christie will play better in Iowa, we need to make like the Islamic mullahs and the sex mullahs and start competing for the space where people actually live.
You’ve met them, or will: the drunks and moochers, the losers and dropouts, the profligates and unemployables. They will at best waste your time, at worst drag you down (?) into fucked-uppery. (…)
Are FUPs more creative than average? Not likely. There have been some creative second-rank FUPs—Poe, for example—but I think this is a kind of occasional idiot-savant syndrome. Those in the very first rank of literary, musical, or scientific creativity—Shakespeare, Mozart, Newton—have been bourgeois as all get-out. (…)
Its most intense expressions in English poetry are those by Keats, Tennyson, and Dickinson, none of whom was fucked up. Keats died young, to be sure, but through no fault of his own. Tennyson lived to 81; Dickinson, 55.
I’m rather flattered to see that the commenters are just as nasty to Derb — DERB!! — as they are to me.
In Trump’s own words he states that Mexico is sending immigrants across the border with “lots of problems.”
I would assume that these problems Trump talks about are economic in nature, as well as health oriented problems. An ABC affiliate in Arizona reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents are seeing real cases of chicken pox, MRSA staph infections, and scabies, and other infectious diseases, including “different viruses” among illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. (…)
The Department of Homeland Security has even issued protective guidelines for their medics and border agents to follow. (…)
The crimes committed against Americans along the southern U.S. border and in American cities by illegal immigrants has been well documented.
The federal government has even admitted to releasing thousands of criminal illegal immigrants, who have committed crimes like rape and murder.
Fusion TV, which is owned by ABC and Univision, has even documented the rape epidemic in Mexico. Illegal immigrant woman and girls from central America and Mexico, who travel to the U.S., are being raped along the way through Mexico, and many are being forced or tricked into prostitution once the crossover, or before they are allowed to enter the U.S.
These women are not thinking about how they look, how their faces are posed, how their bodies might be viewed. The face becomes a way of communicating to teammates; the body, as they have trained it to become through thousands of hours of practice, a vehicle for winning. Certainly there are plenty of times in every woman’s life when how she looks isn’t at the fore of her mind, but it’s rare to have proof—visual, unrefutable proof—that at that moment, she is absolutely not thinking about how she looks. To watch female athletes is to watch women not give a shit when they look ugly. A lifelong soccer fan recently told me he feels guilty sometimes watching women’s sports because he catches himself being enthralled by their beauty, not just their skill. I told him to keep watching. Because as much as we’ve turned female athletes into spectacles of beauty and sexuality, the more that we watch women want in this particular way, the more we’ll get used to seeing women—beautiful women, odd-looking women, and perfectly pedestrian-looking women, and cute women and sexy women and butch women and girly-girl women—look not-pretty, even ugly sometimes, without apology. Whatever any particular athlete might have cared about before the game (don’t tell me some of those players aren’t wearing eyelash extensions) doesn’t matter. In the moment, she does not give a shit. There is a power in that—a power that I find, without exaggeration, transcendental.
Steve Sailer writes:
Coulter’s latest best-seller, the impressively researched ¡Adios, America!, of course features numerous witticisms. We’re constantly told that conservatives aren’t funny by people without the native wit to realize what a large percentage of professional comedy writers are on the Right.
(It’s not unknown for TV writers to email jokes to Ann that they don’t dare use on their own shows.) (…)
The running joke of the book is that liberals don’t get that they’ve unleashed on America the opposite of the principles they claim to uphold and, more surprisingly, the tastes they prefer.
Not only is the GlobalPost story false, but the author, a leftist restaurateur named Peter Gelling, has himself been ensnared in a controversy involving antiblack racism (more on that later). GlobalPost is a “content partner” of NBC’s, and it occupies that unique space in the blogosphere between hoax news sites like Daily Currant and clickbait sites like Upworthy. Sites like these—I’ll call them “click-fake” sites—take genuine stories and exaggerate them just enough to up the chances of getting hits and shares.
In the 80’s, when being Right was suddenly cool, all sorts of faddish sorts jumped on board, but few possessed the social core required to carry the fight to the Progressives. Instead they went in for whatever was fashionable to sell books, radio shows and ugly ties. Instead of building a movement that could displace the Left, they sucked it dry. The so-called paleo-cons predicted this result.
Mark Steyn writes:
It’s always a mistake to expect first principles from the left. In Turkey President Erdogan famously explained that democracy is a train you ride until the stop you want to get to – and then you get off. That’s how the left feels about “rights”. There are no principles, only accretions of power.
For those of us cursed by principled argument, the problem of the passing years is that, whatever comes up in the headlines, we had our say five, ten, twenty years ago, and haven’t changed our minds. Six years ago I wrote a column for Maclean’s, which was itself a restatement of a column from The Western Standard another five years before that – all about polygamy, and the gay activists purporting to scoff at it (…)[Behold the] Headline from this morning’s Politico:
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism
The right never learns that there is no last concession, only a nano-second’s respite to catch your breath and then (to reprise another Kathy Shaidle line) more KY for that slippery slope.
Someday soon some judge somewhere will rule in favor of polygamy, not because the left is especially invested in this particular “expansion” of rights but because of the opportunities it provides for further vandalism of what’s left of the old order. That’s what matters. (…)
In the gloomier moments of my own case, my lawyers and I occasionally discuss how, if it all goes pear-shaped in DC, we’ll be off to SCOTUS. But we’re not Larry Flynt in the Eighties anymore. It would seem to me rather complacent to assume these days that there are five votes for free speech at the US Supreme Court.
Or as I call it, “Church-rape”….
(Extra points for the new avi, Jim…)
“No, gay marriage won’t be used as a weapon against churches,” say the people who want to shut down a bakery for refusing to bake a cake.
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) June 30, 2015